Correct. We could beat Burnley 20-0 with Welbeck scoring all of them and he still wouldn't help us challenge for the title anymore so than we would have done without him.
We finished top 4 without him. He's not going to be someone who propels us to the title. So with or without we'd be 4th or thereabouts. So however earnest and likeable he is.. He serves little purpose other than squad padding.
There's no one player on the planet that would win us the title. Without Welbeck we'd be starting Sanogo every game
Can I have a P please Bob? ....plus another U and we don't need the I 'Presumptuous' <<<< pats self on back
That's a bit simplified, I mean going on your logic, it didn't make any difference having RVP in the team, as we finished 4th with him in 2008-09 and 2010-11 and we've finished 4th without him. Yet he blatantly did make a difference, as has Wellbeck.
Yep. Of course Welbeck is making a difference, but it doesn't suit the theory that Welbeck is just 'squad padding' to admit that.
He makes no difference. And RVP made no difference back when we finished 4th with him and 4th without. What difference did RVP make to the teams general success exactly? It's like wondering how strong one of your metal links in a chain is while ignoring that one of the links further along is made of wet paper.
But surely, as you expect Welbeck to score 2 goals in the next game, effectively giving us 3 points in a tight league, then that could make a massive difference between us say finishing 3rd instead of 4th, or 4th instead of 5th (or even 6th). In the same way RVP made a massive difference in how we performed, how many games we won, and where we finished in the league (by his goals earning us x amount of points), as without these points we would have finished much lower.
But its a team game not a chain - and if your better players can compensate for your weaker ones. If we followed your argument that 'x won't make any difference' and your chain argument then you could say that there's no point keeping your best players coz they won't make any difference coz of your weakest player. Follow that argument and you'd get rid of all of your best players, leaving a squad of hugely weak ones. Expecting a team to perform the same without your best players is ridiculous.
So you're saying he made a difference because he was better than playing with no one? With him we were 4th,witbout him we were 4th.
